Reds (1981) - Biography, Drama, History

Hohum Score

95

Hohummer

A radical American journalist becomes involved with the Communist revolution in Russia, and hopes to bring its spirit and idealism to the United States.

IMDB: 7.3
Director: Warren Beatty
Stars: Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton
Length: 195 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 34 out of 133 found boring (25.56%)

One-line Reviews (122)

Thrilling, challenging, gorgeous, emotional and epic.

But Beatty and Keaton play the famous couple as constantly squabbling and making up, which becomes tedious about midway through this very long movie.

Pretentious and ineffectual .

In his Academy Award acceptance speech, Warren Beatty plauded a capitalistic system that would permit the making of a movie like this -- about a rabble-rousing journalist who joined the Russian revolution and wound up buried in the Kremlin.

Dull, ideologically misguided and extremely padded .

Keaton manages to translate her innermost thoughts into expressions, and her penetrating scenes with Nicholson are quietly-charged and fascinating, although her romance with Beatty's Reed feels somewhat muffled.

Finally on DVD in a pristine print transfer, it's hard to believe it's been a quarter century since I've seen this movie, yet it still casts an intriguing spell probably because Beatty seems so enraptured by the turbulent story of John Reed, the American journalist-turned-Communist activist who provided a vital and controversial first-hand account of the Russian Revolution of 1917, "Ten Days That Shook the World".

Though interesting, "Reds" is slow, overlong and at times too conventional.

At the same time, he finds himself deeply in love with a compelling woman and trying to come to terms with their relationship over several years.

However, "Reds" is a long ambitious epic about Reed and his wife, Louise Bryant, that is intelligent, engrossing, and meticulously produced.

Absolutely compelling and HIGHLY recommended!

The movie has a whopper of a running time (3 and a half hours) but even at the slower parts I never felt especially impatient with its length.

The script tends to run on in parts, yet tells a compelling story.

All in all, it's very boring, overlong, and I find the idea of putting 'witnesses' to comment about the events to be horrible.

It's always exciting when movies take us to different places visually, intellectually, and emotionally and this is exactly what this movie does.

This is indeed fatuous as the film drones on forever, as if Beatty feels that every single frame of film he shot was indispensible.

Every set piece felt like another staged scene forced upon my already dulled and bored senses.

Unlike another tale told against the Russian revolution, DR. ZHIVAGO, this film seems claustrophobic from beginning to end, darkly lit interiors and muted color giving it all a very dull finish.

Pretentious, long, boring .

With her self-effacing Annie Hall mannerisms held in check, Diane Keaton fulfills the comparatively more difficult role as the mercurial Bryant since she initially comes across as an embittered dilettante and then evolves in a somewhat disjointed manner to become the supportive wife.

It is not a film for those who are exclusively devoted to thrill-a-minute, fast paced action pictures.

But much more engaging is that these are enticing people, many with minds and phases that invite us into their faces — made warmer and more open by Beatty's camera.

The film is long drawn out and touching with the pains of acceptance and denial that John feels first in Russia the viewer feels.

Stupefyingly Boring And Long-Winded .

The cinematography is ho-hum.

Not the runaway hit it was supposed to be, but still a fascinating movie with some great performances and striking cinematography.

Sometimes star power can make or break a movie, that's the case with "Reds", its a rather dull story about a women who gets involved with communism.

Shot by Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro reds is stunning, it's a 3 Hour & 12 minute epic which just sweeps byjoining them are supporting cast are Gene Hackman making a brief appearance Jack Nicholson as Eugene O'Neil, it's far better and whole some affair than David Lean's 'Dr.

This takes the prize for me as surely one of the most boring movies of all time.

The geopolitical conditions, political ideologies and remarkable personalities that drove it are fascinating to students of many different disciplines.

This dreary piece of smut, supposedly a documentary on one man during the October Revolution of 1917, was little more than 4 depressing hours of unimaginative and uninspiring bedroom scenes spread across Russia.

And his false modesty is a tiresome thing.

The first part of "Reds" ends with a stirring montage set to a rousing rendition of the Internationale.

Shampoo is entertaining, see that.

The cliché 'commune' interactions by the Bolsheviks and Reed was expectable but also predictable.

To me, it was a total cure for insomnia.

Warren Beatty put it all together with near genius and tossed in a pretty compelling romantic angle as a bonus.

Long, yet immensly entertaining and interesting, which was one of the few political films (besides maybe South Park) that got me thinking about communism.

I could have done with less of the domestic squabbling that drags down the middle part of the film, and found the parts detailing the couple's experiences in Russia to be the most engrossing.

Those who enjoyed it did so for one of three reasons: admiration for the career of one or another of the actors in it, interest in the period or the politics of the early twentieth century, or curiosity about whether Diane Keaton could actually pull off a purely dramatic role.

Reed is a fascinating and unlikely subject for a Hollywood movie, mostly because he is extremely complicated and doesn't say "gee whiz" a lot.

Unfortunately, the second half of "Reds" is slower and wordier than the first, and the film ends on a somber note.

And then his rebellion against the lying propaganda of Zinoviev.

Boring, pretentious, preachy .

The romantic entanglement of Reed, Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) and playwright Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson) serves both as a central plot element and an absorbing backdrop to the political sympathies of the principal players.

Frankly, though, my real reaction to this film was to be bored almost to tears virtually from the first moment, when began several minutes of the talking heads - well - talking.

Thrilling, challenging, gorgeous, emotional and epic .

Technically, this was a pretty well-made film, though awfully long and a bit boring in spots because of this.

Political carping aside, the movie suffers from the worst thing possible for a film--It is boring.

The most exciting thing about this film are the discussions and the conflicts between him and his wife.

Incredibly long and boring tale of Communist sympathizers .

Reds is fits the definition of a boring film.

and at the useful idiots who swooned over this long, dull, golden turkey and nominated it for an Oscar.

One scene is confusing to me, when the train was attacked by the counter revolutionaries, why did Reed run toward the other side while people were shooting at the train and him?

And they did it sooooo boringly.

The love story between the two seems a little forced and uninteresting, and that is why I rated this movie a seven instead of an eight.

REDS received four acting nominations in four categories, firstly, Beatty is apparently too old for the role (Reed dies at the age of 33, while Beatty was already over 40 during the filming), but if one is not familiar with the archetype, his very sympathetic portrayal is fairly engaging, we can feel for Jack's idealistic enthusiasm, his intense affection to Louise (there are at least three sex scenes to prove his prowess, even after he loses one kidney), and the root of his tragedy - his erudite perception of the society fatally conflicts with his simplistic modus operandi.

The characters are 3 dimensional people living in rapidly changing times much like 1999 but even more intense.

The movie is very long although I understand why it had to be so long.

In short, "Reds" can't decide if it's an historical epic or a love story, leaving audiences with a empty feeling, not certain when the saga will end, or why it ended, or just if it ended.

Tedious historical epic with some interesting elements .

An engrossing film about John Reed's love affair with Louise Bryant and his struggles in the midst of the Russian Revolution.

Reds is Boring.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Filmed in 1980-81, it reveals the political climate of the early part of the century which is so similar to the propaganda and power struggles of today and tomorrow.

It is when Jack invites Louise to travel with him to Russia to cover the Revolution, that the movie becomes fascinating and marks a turning point in his life as he stops being a man reporting news to being a man involved in History, in the creation of news.

It was boring, pretentious, and preachy when it came out and, on a reviewing, it was still the same.

The worst movie I have ever seen.

a tedious bore to watch for three hours...

boring movie about an interesting topic .

The movie is not always engaging, sometimes it's dull.

Epic bore ...

As for her romance with Reed, it's about as dull as dishwater.

Sitting and fidgeting in the cinema, I was frequently reminded of the old Carly Simon song "You're so vain" rumored to have been written about Mr Beatty.

But not quite there historically (on the Russian side), mainly because there is so much condensing (even at three hours running time) and at times it shows in the dialogue which has the odd cliche here and there.

The first half - all one hour and forty five minutes of it - is mostly just there to set up an unbelievable and uninteresting love story.

Fascinating, entertaining--the "Witnesses" are inspired .

) And there are many talky and somewhat dull arguments between Keaton and Beatty.

Could it be more boring.

The most notable performances were by Beatty himself, (who's embodiment of Jack Reed was incredible), Diane Keaton, (who portrayed all the facets of Louise's personality with stunning realism), Jack Nickelson, (who delivers O'Neil's quick witted dialogue with an almost frightening cynicism), and Maureen Stapelton, (who conveyed an amazing strength as Emma Goldman).

This is incredibly dull and padded, taking about 90 minutes for something that could have taken 15-30 minutes.

) As far as I'm concerned, there's too much dull depiction of the bohemian lifestyle of this Greenwich Village intelligentsia, most of whom never put in an honest day's work in their lives.

It's an interesting, enjoyable epic with several good performances by Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Paul Sorvino, Jerzy Kosinski, and other good actors in cameo roles.

Jerzy Kozinsky is riveting as Zinoviev.

Obviously an exercise in conceit for Warren Beatty, who shamelessly promotes this confusing, pointless film with the transparently egotistical tag-line "Not since Gone with The Wind has there been such an epic" or some such nonsense.

It is way too long and the celebration of an American who hated his own country and everything it stood for is going to be a very bitter pill for a lot of the audience to swallow.

It is visible that they worked hard on this movie: filming the interviews, putting a prominent cast together, etc. But unfortunately, the movie is unbelievably tedious.

Regardless of any viewers politics, being in Russia in 1917 must have been an extremely exciting environment.

And what gives it its extra potency, poignancy and fascination are the poetic, sometimes riveting, sometimes intriguing recollections of the "Witnesses".

PPS--this dishonest film that bored most viewers and lost millions was adored by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (the Oscar people) with lots of awards and nominations.

Beatty made a unique, fascinating film about a subject untouched by American filmmakers (strangely).

It is slow paced, an historical drama that you probably have seen one thousand times before, and utterly uninteresting, I mean, it looks like something that you can learn in a history class or something.

A film with the title Reds must be a propaganda film, and it actually is (joke: propaganda is a gentlemanly goose).

The worst movie I have ever seen.

this movie is a danger to people everywhere, as one could easily weaponize it and use it as a torture device.

this movie is long, boring, dull, and succeeds in leaving the viewer with absolutely no understanding of the storyline.

A fascinating, expertly made look at why "The Red Menace" never was that, here in the United States, and why the Russian Revolution never turned out to be what it could have been.

Beautifully filmed these witnesses with their resonant voices that speak across decades provide a window on a time and place in American, Russian and world history, Add to this the brilliant images of New York's Greenwich Village, Moscow at the time of the revolution, the endearing and enduring screen presence of Diane Keaton and Warren Beatty, the beautiful film score of Sondheim, and a story line which is as gripping and entertaining as it is historically fascinating, and you have a film to be savored and enjoyed through the decades to come.

The inclusion of historical 'witnesses' to the lives of the characters and events of the time offer an intriguing first person account of the film's story, though admittedly some of those figures have some difficulty engaging their memories.

This also gives the film the absorbing feel of a docudrama, presenting multiple accounts of the same story.

Edward Herrmann as Max Eastman, is riveting.

Not only is it difficult to praise the storyline, which wanders all over the place and never gives you time to sympathize or care about the characters, but the film is overbloated with dull scenes and some ludicrous casting.

Although you see some loud scenes of various communists, socialists, anarchists and trade unionists screaming at each other over tedious, bureaucratic details, there is really no explanation of why either Reed or Bryant became radicalized, when both came from comfortable, middle-class Portland families.

Jack Nicholson's O'Neill is laid back and so much more interesting than the red rousing Reed you almost wish the camera would follow him around for the rest of the film.

The DVD extras with Beatty, Nicholson, Barry Diller and other cast and crew 25 years later is enlightening and worth watching.

an intriguing work as a whole .

The cinematography is breathtaking and its washed out look broke the mold in its day.

Political activists and anti-Capitalist radicals will love it though but watching it in any other light just leaves the impression of a romance that goes on for far too long and suffers from its own self-importance.

It gets a bit repetitive.

It's three hours of indistinguishable bickering between Keaton and Beatty, interrupted occasionally by communist adversaries bickering.

Beatty's film making is an intriguing work as a whole, particularly given the way he employed actual witnesses of the period to comment on the events portrayed in this work in semi-documentary style.

Movies need to be entertaining, period.

Where the film lacked was editing, a good half of that movie could have easily been taken out, and the story wold have been gripping, it could have had something great.

Except for technical brilliance in photography and settings, this is possibly the most boring of all the epic movies to come out of the Hollywood mill.

Warren Beatty is at his most obnoxious throughout and Diane Keaton makes a most unattractive co-star in a bland and underwritten role as his adoring sweetheart.

But, as I said, because of her central position in the story, it made the movie unbearable.

Despite the life he led, Reed as played by Beatty is bland and uninvolving.

I can see any specimen in the leftist menagerie go into rapturous convulsions while watching this 4-hour yawner, some in the private theaters of their posh mansions.

This is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen.

This movie was OK.. I fell asleep during it so take my rating with a grain of salt.

I truly cared about these characters, because they were flawed yet compelling, and because the actors were just f-ing brilliant.

This is where the movie becomes gripping.